<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (7) TMI 2075 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284718</link>
    <description>An ex parte request for issuance of a letter of request under Section 166A CrPC, read with Section 105C, was vulnerable where it sought not only investigative assistance but also restraint and attachment of foreign-held assets. Procedural fairness required the affected party to be heard before such relief was considered. At the same time, concern over possible dissipation of assets justified interim protection. The order issuing the letter of request was therefore set aside, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner, and interim protection was continued against transfer of the concerned assets until the trial court decided the application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2019 18:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=596495" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 2075 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284718</link>
      <description>An ex parte request for issuance of a letter of request under Section 166A CrPC, read with Section 105C, was vulnerable where it sought not only investigative assistance but also restraint and attachment of foreign-held assets. Procedural fairness required the affected party to be heard before such relief was considered. At the same time, concern over possible dissipation of assets justified interim protection. The order issuing the letter of request was therefore set aside, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner, and interim protection was continued against transfer of the concerned assets until the trial court decided the application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>